![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
grrgoylI went into my Saturday shift at the kennels determined to atone for the major slacking I did Friday night. Everything started well: I had only 7 dogs, 1 cat and no postops. I did my normal routine and, predictably, Honus started in on his whining-as-a-prelude-to-barking the minute I was out of sight. I called to ask Tery a question and, while pacing back and forth in the corridor chatting, I noticed the canine peanut gallery was completely silent. This will probably come as no surprise at all to people who own dogs, but as long as they could hear me, they were content.
Normally I spend the night tiptoeing around to avoid setting them off, but tonight it occurred to me how silly that was. It's not like they have to get up for school in the morning or anything. With this revelation, I went to work with a passion. Cleaned dishes, organized food, swept, mopped, laundered, wrapped surgical gowns, all while listening to my iPod and singing at the top of my lungs. I'm sure I sounded appalling, but every time I stopped I would hear Honus start to gear up again into one of his jags.
I kept it up until midnight, when I literally had done everything I could possibly do in the way of cleaning. I was on FIRE. Really, you can get SO much more done when you don't worry about doing it quietly. I was flushed with a feeling of accomplishment and decided to head upstairs. Usually again this is reason for Honus to start in, but not a peep. And so it was all night long, to my complete astonishment. When I went back downstairs to feed and walk everyone one last time, I heaped on the praise liberally, thanking Honus for being so good. I gave him an extra helping of food, fluffed his blanket and even took some time to pet him when we went outside.
Then, it all came crashing down. We came back in, I tried to return him to his kennel, and he went back to being the pain in the ass, very bad dog that he was before. He sees our destination and hunkers down, tries to back up, thrashes and wriggles, tries to dash between my ankles, even once he's inside the cage. And tonight as I wrestled with him, he turned around and bit me. Didn't draw blood, but I'm still feeling it today. He meant business. This totally put an end to our magical evening together. This is why a long-term relationship between us simply wouldn't work. The best we can hope for are temporary truces.
I get it. He doesn't like being caged up. I can't say that I blame him, but sadly being allowed to run free in the hospital just isn't an option.
Here's a pic I took with my fabulous, vastly superior Razr:
I know what you're thinking. "Awwwww, the baby. How could you be such a monster?" We-l-l-l-l-l-l, that's the picture AFTER I thoughtfully photoshopped it. THIS is the original:
(Okay, I took a little artistic license. The horns were my idea, and as I chuckled evilly to myself Tery initially protested. However, it was a very short leap indeed from "What if his owners ever see it?" to "Wait, he needs a tail!")
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I try whenever possible to avoid internet debates with strangers. I've spent enough time in the AOL chatroom and IM trenches to have learned that I will never change someone's opinion, ever (and vice versa. I have yet to have my opinion changed by anyone). But a few days ago I was distracted from working and decided to surf YouTube looking for opinions on gay marriage. I found this guy's and the trouble began.
My first, unfair assumption was that he would be against gay marriage. Once again, books and their covers and all that. He spoke slowly, deliberately, but matter-of-factly and to the point about why he believes gay marriage should be legal. He narrowed it down to two protests, 1) it's a sin (he argues that you can't legislate against Christian sins as that would be imposing one religion's beliefs on the entire country. Quite right), and 2) ye olde "sanctity of marriage" argument (he unfortunately addresses this too briefly, saying only that marriage as an institution ain't so sacred anymore).
What followed were the usual assortment of comments for and against. A lot of morons tried using the "Well, if we can't make sins a crime, why is murder illegal?" argument, but they were being dealt with handily. What bothered me were the ones arguing "Just because marriage is already broken doesn't justify breaking it more." They were going unchallenged, so I (foolishly?) decided to step into the fray. Ahem:
Kildars: Just because marriage is already messed up -- that doesn't give a good reason to mess it up more. Saying that something is already broken and validating breaking it more is a bad argument.
Grrgoyl: I think the point is that people so desperate to protect the "sanctity of marriage" aren't concerned with the extremely high heterosexual divorce rate. If they want to keep the institution of marriage sacred, they need to look at ALL marriages. Unless, of course, they are just homophobes.
Kildars: All marriage are heterosexual? If I'm not mistaken the first gay marriage that was allowed ended the two gay guys were beating the shit out each other and police had to break it up.
What? What does this have to do with the price of beets in Belgium?
Grrgoyl: Ummm, way to completely miss (or ignore) my point. But to respond, yes, with gay marriage would come gay divorce. We're all only human. Are you saying straights never beat each other? Why is it so noteworthy just because gays do it too?
Kildars: What was your point? You don't have a case because your argument was based around that marriages are something other than heterosexual, which they aren't. So how is your argument valid?
Yeah. Right about now I remembered why I try whenever possible to avoid internet debates with strangers.
Grrgoyl: "Sanctity of marriage" people don't care about how straights take it for granted and get married and divorced so casually every single day. How would gays marrying violate the "sanctity" more than Britney's whirlwind 55-hour Vegas nuptials did? I've had rolls of toilet paper that lasted longer, but because it was between a man and a woman, the "sanctity of marriage" people are A-okay with it. That's hypocritical and insulting to the lifelong gay couples who are denied this personal right.
Kildars (or, as I started to think of him, "Obtusey McStubbornson"): How is the, "Well it's already broken, it's okay to degrade it some more." argument okay? That's a bad argument. If something is already broken the best choice is to fix it, not to further degrade it. Find a new argument.
Using the same words in a slightly different order doesn't strengthen your case. YOU find a new argument.
Grrgoyl: I'm interested in hearing why you think that two adults who love each other and want to commit to each other who happen to be the same gender "degrade" marriage and "break it" further. They aren't hurting anyone, they certainly aren't affecting you directly, how do they "mess it up more"?
Obtusey McStubbornson: The burden of proof lies on you, not me, to convince whether or not they should be allowed to marry. I'm interested to hear why you think allowing homosexuals to get married is good for the reputation of Marriage we have in this country, and why it should be allowed. It seems people agree with me over you, www dot msnbc dot msn dot com/id/6383353/. Go to that link.
Oh my god. It's a bit like trying to juggle egg yolks.
Grrgoyl: Really? Voters are defeating gay bills? I had no idea. I personally am not concerned with the "reputation of marriage." I was only elaborating on what altebanger said about how the institution of marriage isn't so sacred anymore. This is supported by the 40-50% divorce rate among legal marriages. So "the sanctity of marriage" is pretty empty as catch phrases go. Which is what I've said 3 times now and you keep dodging the subject, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
ARGH. He'll probably insist on having the last word, regardless of how little sense it makes or how irrelevant to the topic, but I'm done. When the revolucíon is won, I nominate this guy as the first to the gallows, but only AFTER receiving his mandatory gay marriage.
The Internet: Bringing you in contact with bigoted idiots from around the world since 1990.
Normally I spend the night tiptoeing around to avoid setting them off, but tonight it occurred to me how silly that was. It's not like they have to get up for school in the morning or anything. With this revelation, I went to work with a passion. Cleaned dishes, organized food, swept, mopped, laundered, wrapped surgical gowns, all while listening to my iPod and singing at the top of my lungs. I'm sure I sounded appalling, but every time I stopped I would hear Honus start to gear up again into one of his jags.
I kept it up until midnight, when I literally had done everything I could possibly do in the way of cleaning. I was on FIRE. Really, you can get SO much more done when you don't worry about doing it quietly. I was flushed with a feeling of accomplishment and decided to head upstairs. Usually again this is reason for Honus to start in, but not a peep. And so it was all night long, to my complete astonishment. When I went back downstairs to feed and walk everyone one last time, I heaped on the praise liberally, thanking Honus for being so good. I gave him an extra helping of food, fluffed his blanket and even took some time to pet him when we went outside.
Then, it all came crashing down. We came back in, I tried to return him to his kennel, and he went back to being the pain in the ass, very bad dog that he was before. He sees our destination and hunkers down, tries to back up, thrashes and wriggles, tries to dash between my ankles, even once he's inside the cage. And tonight as I wrestled with him, he turned around and bit me. Didn't draw blood, but I'm still feeling it today. He meant business. This totally put an end to our magical evening together. This is why a long-term relationship between us simply wouldn't work. The best we can hope for are temporary truces.
I get it. He doesn't like being caged up. I can't say that I blame him, but sadly being allowed to run free in the hospital just isn't an option.
Here's a pic I took with my fabulous, vastly superior Razr:
I know what you're thinking. "Awwwww, the baby. How could you be such a monster?" We-l-l-l-l-l-l, that's the picture AFTER I thoughtfully photoshopped it. THIS is the original:
(Okay, I took a little artistic license. The horns were my idea, and as I chuckled evilly to myself Tery initially protested. However, it was a very short leap indeed from "What if his owners ever see it?" to "Wait, he needs a tail!")
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I try whenever possible to avoid internet debates with strangers. I've spent enough time in the AOL chatroom and IM trenches to have learned that I will never change someone's opinion, ever (and vice versa. I have yet to have my opinion changed by anyone). But a few days ago I was distracted from working and decided to surf YouTube looking for opinions on gay marriage. I found this guy's and the trouble began.
My first, unfair assumption was that he would be against gay marriage. Once again, books and their covers and all that. He spoke slowly, deliberately, but matter-of-factly and to the point about why he believes gay marriage should be legal. He narrowed it down to two protests, 1) it's a sin (he argues that you can't legislate against Christian sins as that would be imposing one religion's beliefs on the entire country. Quite right), and 2) ye olde "sanctity of marriage" argument (he unfortunately addresses this too briefly, saying only that marriage as an institution ain't so sacred anymore).
What followed were the usual assortment of comments for and against. A lot of morons tried using the "Well, if we can't make sins a crime, why is murder illegal?" argument, but they were being dealt with handily. What bothered me were the ones arguing "Just because marriage is already broken doesn't justify breaking it more." They were going unchallenged, so I (foolishly?) decided to step into the fray. Ahem:
Kildars: Just because marriage is already messed up -- that doesn't give a good reason to mess it up more. Saying that something is already broken and validating breaking it more is a bad argument.
Grrgoyl: I think the point is that people so desperate to protect the "sanctity of marriage" aren't concerned with the extremely high heterosexual divorce rate. If they want to keep the institution of marriage sacred, they need to look at ALL marriages. Unless, of course, they are just homophobes.
Kildars: All marriage are heterosexual? If I'm not mistaken the first gay marriage that was allowed ended the two gay guys were beating the shit out each other and police had to break it up.
What? What does this have to do with the price of beets in Belgium?
Grrgoyl: Ummm, way to completely miss (or ignore) my point. But to respond, yes, with gay marriage would come gay divorce. We're all only human. Are you saying straights never beat each other? Why is it so noteworthy just because gays do it too?
Kildars: What was your point? You don't have a case because your argument was based around that marriages are something other than heterosexual, which they aren't. So how is your argument valid?
Yeah. Right about now I remembered why I try whenever possible to avoid internet debates with strangers.
Grrgoyl: "Sanctity of marriage" people don't care about how straights take it for granted and get married and divorced so casually every single day. How would gays marrying violate the "sanctity" more than Britney's whirlwind 55-hour Vegas nuptials did? I've had rolls of toilet paper that lasted longer, but because it was between a man and a woman, the "sanctity of marriage" people are A-okay with it. That's hypocritical and insulting to the lifelong gay couples who are denied this personal right.
Kildars (or, as I started to think of him, "Obtusey McStubbornson"): How is the, "Well it's already broken, it's okay to degrade it some more." argument okay? That's a bad argument. If something is already broken the best choice is to fix it, not to further degrade it. Find a new argument.
Using the same words in a slightly different order doesn't strengthen your case. YOU find a new argument.
Grrgoyl: I'm interested in hearing why you think that two adults who love each other and want to commit to each other who happen to be the same gender "degrade" marriage and "break it" further. They aren't hurting anyone, they certainly aren't affecting you directly, how do they "mess it up more"?
Obtusey McStubbornson: The burden of proof lies on you, not me, to convince whether or not they should be allowed to marry. I'm interested to hear why you think allowing homosexuals to get married is good for the reputation of Marriage we have in this country, and why it should be allowed. It seems people agree with me over you, www dot msnbc dot msn dot com/id/6383353/. Go to that link.
Oh my god. It's a bit like trying to juggle egg yolks.
Grrgoyl: Really? Voters are defeating gay bills? I had no idea. I personally am not concerned with the "reputation of marriage." I was only elaborating on what altebanger said about how the institution of marriage isn't so sacred anymore. This is supported by the 40-50% divorce rate among legal marriages. So "the sanctity of marriage" is pretty empty as catch phrases go. Which is what I've said 3 times now and you keep dodging the subject, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
ARGH. He'll probably insist on having the last word, regardless of how little sense it makes or how irrelevant to the topic, but I'm done. When the revolucíon is won, I nominate this guy as the first to the gallows, but only AFTER receiving his mandatory gay marriage.
The Internet: Bringing you in contact with bigoted idiots from around the world since 1990.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
aw. What a cute little hell-hound!
Date: 2006-11-14 06:39 am (UTC)double-commenting: new late-night trend? more on this after traffic.
Date: 2006-11-14 06:41 am (UTC)Re: double-commenting: new late-night trend? more on this after traffic.
Date: 2006-11-14 06:52 am (UTC)1990 no good? I was Googling quickly and didn't want to get bogged down in the quagmire of "internet" vs. "world wide web" (but I learned the difference). Either way, can't you just laugh at my clever joke and ignore the details?
Re: double-commenting: new late-night trend? more on this after traffic.
Date: 2006-11-14 06:55 am (UTC)There's a difference? I did, but I could hardly leave a comment saying "I laughed at your internet joke and the dog is cute." Livejournal is tricky business.
Re: double-commenting: new late-night trend? more on this after traffic.
Date: 2006-11-14 07:01 am (UTC)LJ IS tricky. Likewise, I can hardly say "Sorry for doubting, I should have known you were laughing on the inside."
meta
Date: 2006-11-14 07:08 am (UTC)An LJ-friend of mine made a post about that a while back, and we talked about how you can't just leave a comment saying "I read this, and I loved it, but I'm too slow right now to say anything clever in return". We talked about how nice it would be if we could just leave a picture of ourselves enjoying coffee and the livejournal entry and generally being a very attentive friend. We realized that no one would understand what the picture meant and that it would be worse, in the long run, than not commenting at all.
Re: meta
Date: 2006-11-14 07:16 am (UTC)I like the idea of your picture. I myself get irked when no one comments, yet hypocritically only comment on maybe a third of what I read. I can relate to not having anything meaningful to say, which doesn't mean that I'm not reading. Glad I'm not the only one in this dilemma.
Re: meta
Date: 2006-11-14 07:30 am (UTC)From what I've heard, you're most definitely not.
I've been trying, recently, to comment on most of what I read. It's hard going and I've noticed a decline in the quality of my responses, but at least everyone on my flist feels special for a while. Everyone except for one of my closest LJ-friends, who I no longer exchange many comments with due to a tacit agreement to admire each other from afar and only jump in to offer comfort when something awful happens.
Re: meta
Date: 2006-11-14 07:43 am (UTC)That's very generous of you. Your LJ-friend sounds very lucky. I enjoy comments as much as the next person, but quality is certainly valued over quantity.
(Oh, and Honus is NOT a cute dog. He's the hellbeast from hell. I HATES him.)